Go To SPOXTalk.comHome

     Total Page Views
We received
27136136
page views since Nov 2004

     Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code


     Shop Amazon


     Stories By Topic
Vermont News



A Judge Lynching
All My Aliens
Announcements
Art News
Health News
Holidays
Humor
Interviews
Opinion
Paranormal News
Political News
Sci-fi News
Science News
Spiritual News
The News
Travel News
Unusual News
Vermont News

     Exploration
· Home
· 007
· Ask_Shabby
· Content
· Dates
· Downloads
· FAQ
· Feedback
· Fine_Print
· Forums
· Fun_Stuff
· Game_World
· Home_Grown
· Journal
· Link_To
· Private Messages
· QNL
· Recommend Us
· Reviews
· Search
· Site_Credits
· SPOX_Talk
· Stone_Tarot
· Stores_Shop
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Tell_Us
· Top 10
· Top Stories
· Topics
· Weather_Station
· Web Links
· Your Account

     Who's Online
There are currently, 23 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

     Monthly Quote
“If a man has an apartment stacked to the ceiling with newspapers we call him crazy. If a woman has a trailer house full of cats we call her nuts. But when people pathologically hoard so much cash that they impoverish the entire nation, we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and pretend that they are role models.”
-– B. Lester

     Link to us!
AlienLove Logos

Add Your Link To Us!

     Anti-War Webs
Anti-War Web Ring
[<<<] [ list ] [???] [ join ] [>>>]

 The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S.

The Toeg Effect
Welcome to the Toeg Effect.
Today we discuss a fundamental right that was eventually included in the original Bill of Rights as passed by Congress on December 15, 1791. This right has been at the crux of many a heated debate over the past fifty years, pitting sibling against sibling and ideologue against ideologue. Though only one sentence long, this amendment has been perhaps the most controversial of them all.

Article II of the Bill of Rights states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The question at hand, that our forefathers did not specify, is whether this amendment advocated the individual right of everyone to bear arms, or whether it was a State right to keep a well regulated militia and allow those in the militia to keep and bear arms. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the world looked vastly different to today's tumultuous times. The set of criteria that our forefathers used in determining which conflicts were important are completely separate to today's fears and foibles....



Shop Amazon with AlienLove
Help Support AlienLove - Shop Amazon




Our ancestors were more worried about kings and queens rising to power and ruling over the people with a massive standing army. It was painfully clear that the citizenry needed to take a much more active role in the local defense of the nation. It was understood that the states should control this section and it was planned that state militias would be the best way to effect this. Today, these militias still exist in the form of the National Guard. Every state has its own Guard which is responsible for taking care of statewide natural disasters. It is indeed unfortunate that Bush and Co. have sequestered the National Guard of many states to fight in an overseas war that is not of their concern.

The debate over the Second Amendment pits supporters of an individual right to gun ownership against those who believe the Bill of Rights only protects the right of the people to maintain a well-regulated militia. Let's look at the first view; the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own guns. I here cite one case where an insane doctor was exonerated by a judge because he owned guns prior to committing his crime. He was never even charged with aggravated assault, even though he pointed the gun at his own daughter and threatened her.

The facts of the case are straightforward. Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson, a physician in the state of Texas, had fallen on hard times, and had threatened his estranged wife's hairdresser boyfriend. Emerson's wife obtained a restraining order against her husband. When Emerson's wife went to his medical office, Emerson pulled out a 9 millimeter Berretta pistol and ordered his wife and four-year-old daughter to get off his property. Emerson was indicted under a federal statute that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from being in possession of a weapon.

At the time of his arrest Emerson had two 9 millimeter pistols, a military issue semiautomatic M1 carbine, a semiautomatic SKS assault rifle with a bayonet, and a semiautomatic M14.

Hellllloooooooooooooo......... Anyone out there???? This guy was indicted on FEDERAL charges. Looks like he's got a whole friggin' arsenal of weapons there. Why does a doctor need semiautomatic weapons?

When Emerson's case came before Samuel Cummings, a Texas Federal Court judge, Emerson's court-appointed public defender argued that his client's Second Amendment rights had been violated. Judge Cummings agreed with the public defender and based his decision on recent legal scholarship on the Second Amendment that supports an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. If Emerson v. U.S. (1999) comes before the Supreme Court, it is possible that the Court might reject the previous interpretations of this Amendment entirely and allow all the crazies in the US to have as many semiautomatic weapons their little heart desires.

The right to own guns far outweighs the evil deeds some people commit while in possession. It is far more important to give these evil doers the right to possess weapons than protect the rights of the eventual victims of these sick people. How anyone can promote the purchase of weapons by crazy people is beyond me, but here in the US, there is a large portion of the population that adamantly promotes the sale of weapons to ANYONE, regardless of sanity or state of mind. As long as the person can pay for the weapon, even with a stolen credit card, these people are satisfied that the Second Amendment has not been violated. Who cares how many innocent victims die as a result, we have another demonstration of the freedom expressed by the Second Amendment.

Here is where my concern begins. Let's review this case which looks like it will still hit the Supreme Court soon. We have the case of a medical doctor who pulled out a gun and threatened his estranged wife and child. This doctor has been shown to be mentally unstable by the issuance of a restraining order in the first place. He should have known that owning a gun while the restraining order was in effect was against the law. In fact, the Marshall in charge should have confiscated all the weapons at the time he presented the doctor with the restraining order. On top of it, the doctor's instability was further demonstrated by his total lack of self-restraint when he pulled out a gun to threaten an unarmed woman and her child. My God, America, do you really feel this is a normal act of societal interaction?? Are you really that brain-dead that you perceive the act of threatening another person's life with a gun is a "normal, everyday occurrence that merits no special attention??"

And if we look at the types of guns this doctor owns, we see a pattern of violence that has nothing to do with civil defense. At the time of his arrest Emerson had two 9 millimeter pistols, a military issue semiautomatic M1 carbine, a semiautomatic SKS assault rifle with a bayonet, and a semiautomatic M14. Holy Cow!! You don't need a semiautomatic SKS assault rifle with a bayonet to go duck hunting, that's for sure. A semiautomatic M14 is pretty useless for hunting as well. In fact, these weapons are more suited to urban warfare and terrorism than self-defense.

But the icing on the cake is this: when Emerson's case came before Samuel Cummings, a Texas Federal Court judge, Emerson's court-appointed public defender defended him. A public defender is paid for by the people of the state and is free to any citizen who requests the help. Uh, I'm sorry, but how does a rich-arse doctor stoop so low as to request the services of a PUBLIC DEFENDER, someone who is there to assist the poor? That is way below the belt. So I guess the people of Texas paid for this guy's defense, and the judicial wing of the government decided he could keep his vast arsenal of weapons, along with his raving lunacy,

The public defender argued that his client's Second Amendment rights had been violated. Judge Cummings agreed with the public defender. The judge agreed that this psychotic doctor had a constitutional right to bear arms, even though it was obvious to everyone that he was mentally unstable and a threat to at least his wife and daughter, if not the community at large. This, Toeg listeners, is one of the root causes for so much violence in the US.

While people across the US scream at the tops of their lungs, pound the table furiously with their fist, and proclaim for all to hear that the US Constitution grants the absolute and fundamental right for EVERYONE to own weapons, they fail to mention or even notice that the US is the second worst nation on planet Earth for deaths by firearms with over 29,000 in just the year 2001. Firearms are one of the top ten reasons for death in the US. In the US, every 18 minutes someone dies from a firearm. Only South Africa has a worse humanitarian record with respect to firearms.

While most Americans have heard these statistics before, and have probably yawned every time they heard it, they might not be aware of what goes on in the rest of the world. For those who have never traveled to another country, these dire statistics might sound completely normal. If you've never lived elsewhere, you could never know the difference between life in the US and life in other countries.

For those who don't know, Toeg has lived in two other countries besides the US. I lived in Switzerland for four years, and Mexico for four years. I have seen the difference in mannerisms and mores, in cultures and habits, and in societal dos and don'ts in all three countries. The contrasts are startling and quite revealing.

In the same year that saw over 29,000 firearm-related deaths in the US, only 40 people died as a result of a firearm in Switzerland. This is due in part because Switzerland is a much smaller country. But in order for the Swiss firearm per capita death rate to reach 29,000, their population would have to grow from 7 million to 5 billion people. In other words, the Swiss firearm per capita death rate is so low, that only when Switzerland's population reaches five billion people will they achieve a death rate of 29,000. In contrast, the US's total population is barely 300 million.

But the contrast goes much deeper than one insane judge who allows a maniacal doctor the right to tote semiautomatic assault guns after menacing his estranged wife and child. A look at recent school shootings shows two kids gunning it out on their local campus in Florida. Earlier this month, 32-year-old Carl Charles Roberts IV entered the one-room West Nickel Mines Amish School in Nickel Mines, Pa., and shot 10 schoolgirls, ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, and then himself. Five of the girls and Roberts died. Just days earlier, a 15-year-old student shot and killed Weston School principal John Klang in Cazenovia, Wis.. And only three days before that, on Sepember 26, 2006, an adult male held six students hostage at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey. Colo., and then shot and killed Emily Keyes, 16, and himself. All these events occurred within a month's time and all were committed in the US.

In fact, if you take a look at the all the school shootings worldwide since 1996, there were a total of 45 school murders across the globe. Of these, 34 were committed in the US alone. That's 75% of all school shootings around the world in the past ten years. And we are discussing only a small element of society.

The United States is clearly one of the most violent nations on the globe. We have over two million criminals currently in our local, state and federal prisons. That's by far the most of any country. By contrast, India which has over three times the population of the US has barely 300,000 inmates, or 15% of the US level. Across the span of crimes committed throughout the world in any given year, the US is first in Adults Prosecuted, Assaults, Burglaries, Car Thefts, Drug Offenses, Rape, and in Total Crimes Committed, according to the Nation Master website. So what is it like in other countries?

Let's take a look at a country that is rather familiar to Toeg. While the US has over 450 out of every 100,000 people in jail, in Switzerland only 48 out of every 100,000 go to jail. That's one-tenth of the US rate. In crime after crime, the US posts a greater percentage of crime than Switzerland. Let's speak to the differences of the two countries.

When I first arrived in Switzerland, I didn't meet my fiancée like I had hoped after 14 hours of flight, she was too busy shopping or something. I met her sister and her boyfriend. I didn't know her sister and her boyfriend. They didn't know me. That made it extremely awkward at Cointrin, the airport of Geneva, when I arrived. I think hand signals and napkin writings eventually connected us. I left the airport in the back of a Fiat 500. For those who don't know what a Fiat 500 looks like, just imagine a regular sedan and cut out everything but the front seat and the motor. Then make seats for four people. I basically espoused the back window of the car all the way to my father-in-law's apartment. I quickly found out that everything in Switzerland, in fact in all of Europe, has to have a purpose. We in the US will use 100 tissues to wipe up a spill that required only four to do the job. The Swiss will use five, and curse the fact that they weren't more efficient. No space of that Fiat 500 was left to a vacuum.

After a few days there, I got my first taste of the difference between life in the US and life in Switzerland. My sister-in-law came home one day in a panic. She lost her purse with everything in it. And that means everything. Her money was gone, her credit cards, her driver's license, everything. She had looked everywhere at Balexert, the only mall in Geneva, but she didn't find anything. About thirty minutes later the phone rang and it was the Swiss Lost and Found (or something like that, I'm not an expert). They told her that they had her purse and could she come to identify it?

Everything was there. And when I mean everything, I mean EVERYTHING. Every Swiss Franc was accounted for, every credit card, every id, everything. They asked her to sign a statement that she indeed had received everything she originally lost. Her father, my father-in-law, acted oh so nonchalant about the whole affair. "They better have found everything," he remarked.

During my four years in Switzerland, I met many people who actually preferred to leave their keys IN THE IGNITION OF THEIR CAR. This was so they wouldn't accidentally lose them in the store they were visiting. I can remember walking home plastered at 3:00 am and not having to worry about being attacked. In Switzerland, violence is relegated to fisticuffs between two individuals, usually drunk as a skunk, and most often actual friends who aren't even aware of their actions ........... due to the premise described before. In the late 1970s, Switzerland was a country practically devoid of violence, with a population that complained more about their government than any other society I've seen before or since.

I remember that in 1977 a tourist was killed under the Pont du Mont Blanc bridge in Geneva. That was the greatest topic of local discussion over the next two years. I also remember telling people, "Get over it. One friggin' tourist was killed two years ago. Shhhhhhhhh it happens." It was the fact that killings were uncommon that made everyone talk about it. It's the fact that violence was practically unknown in Geneva that startled the local populace so. Does this mean that no one owned a gun??

Not at all. In fact, Switzerland is one of the few remaining countries that require all of its adult males to join the military. Not only do they require that, but they require that each recruit take possession of a firearm and keep said firearm until the age of 55. Switzerland actively pursues the policy that every male citizen of Switzerland above the age of 17 possess a rifle and a round of ammunition. In other words, each individual male Swiss has the potential of creating a Columbine school shooting incident if he chooses to do so.

So the obvious question is, why don't we see a rise in crime in Switzerland since every guy out there has a gun and enough ammo to lay waste to a Columbine type massacre? And the answer is just as obvious. They ain't as nuts. People in Switzerland are not brought up on violence as Americans are. They aren't constantly playing war games, be they in the back yard or at the arcade place, and they aren't required to go to foreign lands to kill innocent people they've never known. They fully understand the difference between using guns in self-defense, a rare practice, and using guns in a gleeful display of self bravado to impress the voices in one's head. In the US, guns have been used for on-the-job revenge killing (the only nation on Earth to practice this), espousal dispute killings in the thousands, associate revenge killings, turf-war killings, random killings for no apparent reason, bank killings, in fact, the US resembles Iraq more than it does Switzerland.

The Swiss don't see arms as a necessity for survival as I hear so many Americans proclaim. Many Americans say quite frankly, "If I don't have my gun, I don't feel safe. There are many people out there who wish to do me harm, so I have to have my gun." The Swiss are quite the opposite. They quite freely exclaim, "No one is out there to do me harm. Who would want to waste their time on me?" The contrast is amazing.

The Swiss per capita death rate from guns is minimal. The US per capita death rate from guns is one of the worst in the world. The Swiss force their young adult males to espouse the gun, and understand its true meaning. The US asks nothing of its youth, only blind allegiance and no understanding of the real meaning of what a gun can do. With the thousands returning from Iraq with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder we have certified psychopaths wandering around every major city in the US. These guys know how to use sophisticated armament. They are well equipped to kill hundreds of Americans at a drop of a hat. And they are all at least partially psychotic.

Aren't we lucky that through the strict adherence of the Second Amendment, along with a completely illogical lifestyle, we now have thousands of psychopaths running the streets of America in all its major cities, capable of killing thousands of people at a moment's notice; all in the name of the USA. We have created wave after wave of marginal members of society with enough fire power to ensure maximum destruction when the voices in their head finally say the word, "Go." By invoking the Second Amendment as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to every psychopath out there, we assure that they will all be given a second opportunity to create havoc and death. Our good Doctor Emerson only waved a gun at his estranged wife and daughter, and merely threatened her boyfriend. Let's wait until he kills five or six people with his arsenal of weapons before we interact as a nation or a state. We certainly don't want to take away weapons from this raving lunatic. That would be against his constitutional right to bear arms until he kills a whole lot of people.

But wait, there's more.

This country has turned so psycho that when the very Vice President shoots someone in the face, there are thousands of people praying .............. for the welfare of the Vice President. Uh, excuse me??? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Is there any sane person out there left????? A guy's been shot here ........... And it wasn't the VP. In fact, the VP was the one doing the shooting. If anything, we should be investigating why this drunken warmonger shot his friend in the first place. Instead, we are praying that the Vice President of the United States doesn't face "bad publicity" and criminal charges. This blows me away. Americans are praying to their God that He show mercy on the Vice President of the United States for the acts he committed.

These same Americans could care less about the welfare of the person shot. Hey, he was in the way, screw him. Americans look at violence as a normal, integral part of society, not something that is abnormal and can be eliminated. Americans now pass notes to each other about what to do in case they are placed in the trunk of a car, attacked on the street or if they even need to access their car in a parking lot. Now in the US it is dangerous to even sit in your car for a few minutes when it is parked. People warn that it's important to look at the cars next to yours and whether or not anyone is sitting in those cars. The level of paranoia here in the US is at an all-time high, and appears to be growing daily.

Yet, the right of people to carry arms with no questions asked is held as tightly as the Ten Commandments. Americans could care less if unemployed psychopaths walking our streets carry a battery of weapons or not. It is apparently their constitutional right to possess weapons of mass destruction, weapons that could kill dozens of people and maim hundreds. Americans are so adamant about the Second Amendment that they turn a blind eye to the real issue, there is a large population of crazy people in the US who have access to guns. And this group includes children, witness the two Floridian boys shooting it out at their school just days ago.

I agree that people with legitimate purposes should have access to a gun. But what are these legitimate purposes??? They include hunting as well as dangerous jobs such as peace officer. Once our society becomes as peaceful as Switzerland's or other European countries, I would take the guns from the peace officers as well. If there's no need, then there's, uh, no need. A need to own a gun to protect one's home is ludicrous and is a band-aid approach to the real problem. If you need a gun for that, then society is failing you. That's the problem you really need to address, not the fact that you need a gun. Logic dictates that you need to be as stress-free as possible in order to live long. If you have to shoot it out with your neighbors to cross the street, you're chances for a long life are drastically reduced. Likewise, if you need a gun next to your bed before you go to sleep, the chances of using it are much greater than if you didn't have it there in the first place. No one could break into my apartment and use my gun against me because I don't have one in the first place. I've never owned a gun, and I hope to live a life where I never feel the need or requirement to possess a gun in order to stay alive.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is not put there to allow psychopaths to rein terror on Americans using the sophisticated weaponry and training as provided by our current militaristic regime. It is hard for me to accept that our forefathers wanted future lunatics to roam the streets of our cities with advanced weaponry to strike fear in the hearts of our citizens. Somehow, that illogical path was probably not pursued by them. Let's look at what was pursued.

The Second Amendment is placed there so that the citizenry can take up arms against a repressive government should the need arise. Does anyone get this??? HELLLLOOOOOOO????? The Second Amendment is not there to allow psychopaths to kill Amish girls, got that?? The Second Amendment is there to allow us citizens to defend ourselves against a possibly oppressive government, such as the one that was bearing down on the colonialists in the late 1700s. I am tired of Americans granting forgiveness to future serial killers on the prime facie evidence that they own guns and are therefore saints and can never do wrong. The only people I've ever known who have owned an arsenal of weapons were all nazi sympathizers. Is that really the group you feel should control America??

The Second Amendment was introduced into the Constitution to protect Americans, not kill them by the thousands. We have become completely enraptured by the gun and weaponry in general. And we have created a society that applauds the killer, just look at our video games and our TV shows. We raise kids steeped in the ways of violence and war. We have given young, impressionable adults the horrors of war and the knowledge of weapons and their use. We have done everything necessary to ensure that the greatest amount of citizenry is over-equipped with all types of weapons, and has no knowledge whatsoever of the consequences of their usage.

And then we defend their right to kill innocent people because of the Second Amendment. We defend killers because they are using a weapon we all agree upon, a weapon supposedly protected by the Second Amendment. Any killer can receive immediate sympathy from most Americans simply by invoking the Second Amendment, as in the case of our Doctor Emerson. He brandished a weapon and threatened the lives of two people, one of which was a child of four, yet he was not only found innocent of those charges, but he was allowed to keep all of his arsenal of weapons, because to confiscate them would be a violate of the Second Amendment. I guess Americans are waiting for this deranged idiot to kill people before they even consider removing his right to bear enough arms to kill thirty or forty people.

The band-aid approach would be to ban guns, period. Americans don't seem to be capable of using them correctly anyway. Using a gun in the US means shooting at something. The object being shot at seems to be less important.

If it is a tin can, a clay pigeon, or a human being, there seems to be little recognition of the difference in onsequence. Americans are all happy as long as the killing and the dead people's families are elsewhere. The TV producers and video game makers know a hot sell when they see one. They are sure to build the games and shows that Americans want to see, and they have the statistics to prove it.

The real solution would be to instruct all Americans about the real consequences of violence. We need to send family members of the victims into the classrooms to tell the students about first-hand suffering as a result of violence. The demonstration of how a gun alters life forever needs to be emphasized. We need to move from a violence-oriented society to a peaceful society. Pictures of bombs destroying the "bad guys" need to be replaced with pictures of dead soldiers coming home from Iraq. Pictures of gleeful soldiers in Humvees passing hurriedly through a town need to be replaced with scenes of marketplaces being blown up and the citizens crying as they cling to a dead loved one.

And we need to get the guns away from these psychopaths. We need to provide for the welfare of the state, not the destruction and death of the citizens inside the state. The US today resembles a country at war much more so than a superpower at peace. The streets of America run red with blood, the blood of its own citizens. Citizens killed by other citizens. The chance in America of being killed by another American is ten thousand times greater than being killed by a foreign terrorist, yet we have given up all our rights to protect us from something that has a 0.0001% chance of killing us.

WAKE UP AMERICA. REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. CORRECT THE WRONG AND RIGHT THE SHIP BEFORE WE ALL SINK. THE ABOMINATION MUST STOP.

There's no reason we need to be this violent. There's no reason we need to kill each other in numbers that would make al Qaeda blush. I don't think for an instant that our forefathers intended for us to use the Second Amendment as an excuse to kill each other, but that is what it has become. Rather than providing a militia in times of need, we have armed a populace that has a large percentage of psychopaths ready and willing to cut down completely innocent people at a moments notice, all for the pleasure of the evening news. This must stop.

I call on all Americans to stop the cycle of violence and mayhem. We don't need more weapons, we need more reasoning. We don't need more violence, we need more logic. The world is not about to gun us down, and we don't need 1,000 weapons in case they decide to do that. We need to understand that we are all here together to live together in harmony. Let's accept each other, enjoy each other's company, and laugh together. Let's drink together and play together. Let's live together in peace, and by doing this, let's show others that peace is the way to go. Through peace we can achieve much more. The saying is, you can collect a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Peace, and peaceful means, are the only true option for a globe enravaged by war, and a nation overwhelmed by violence. Only through peace will we achieve a lasting solution to the violence that has become the US of today.

We will either live in peace, or die by violence, the choice is yours.

-Toeg



[Editor's Note: Want to know more about what Toeg thinks? – Visit our Forums; or join as a member, and Talk to Toeg.]



Note: You Can Listen To The Toeg Effect On AlienLove's SPOXTalk

Toeg Effect Archive on SPOXTalk




Discuss this article in our forums.

Listen To SPOXTalk.



 
     Related Links
· More about The Toeg Effect
· News by Blue1Moon


Most read story about The Toeg Effect:
WHY AMERICANS ARE SO VIOLENT


     Article Rating
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


     Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


Associated Topics

Opinion

"The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S." | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S. (Score: 1)
by Soulgazer on Tuesday, October 31 @ 17:58:10 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
I view the second ammendment as the "canary in the coal mine" When the second ammendment goes, there goes the rest. The 2nd ammendment is not so hunters can shoot at rabbits, or homeowners protect themselves. The presence of firearms in the general populace is to ensure the peaceful redress of greivences by the government. **quoted from Peter Diamondstone***



Re: The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S. (Score: 1)
by Blue1moon on Tuesday, October 31 @ 20:13:47 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
I can not agree with you on this one Toeg. Violent people will always find ways to hurt others, whether it is with a gun, a knife, a rock off an overpass, a fire.... the ways are endless. It is true that some ways take a little more effort than others, but the end result will probably be not much different. The criminals will certainly not give up their arms.

We do need to find a more peaceful way to live...
However, removing more of our rights will accomplish the opposite I think.

Everyone trained - yes. The prevalence of violence on t.v. and in games needs to be addressed, as do the realities of such behavior in real life.

Our founding fathers remembered who their greatest enemy had been, and provided for our future. Our "National Guard" are gone... no longer guarding the nation, no longer within their states. We are being led down a rosy path.... but we won't find roses at it's end, only thorns.



Re: The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S. (Score: 1)
by -Z on Thursday, November 02 @ 03:17:57 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Toeg, thank you for your piece. “Burlington, Vermont's new mayor, one Mr. Robert Kiss (PC), has responded to concerns about illegal immigrants with a proposal that Burlington become a Sanctuary City for the "illegals." (-Don't ask, don't tell.) Then, despite the fact that, outside of Switzerland, Vermont is the safest place on this planet to live, thanks to it's highest per capita gun ownership and RIGHT to keep and carry concealed firearms; Mayor Kiss declares, due to a recent incident involving a non-Vermonter, a non-U.S. citizen from Jamaica, shooting a person on a Burlington street, that Burlington and Vermont need new Gun Control Laws! [severe violation of Vermont's Constitution] -Giving pause for thought, what does this truly reveal about the recent history of Vermont's takeover by forces unfriendly to traditional Vermont and American values.]..... ‘Zie U.S. unt zie State of Vermont CONSTITUTIONS must be re-taught so zat gun ownership is believed to exist only for zie purpose of hunting. Zie sanctuary city of Burlington can help lead zie way for zie stateunt zie rest of zie country by providing 'relief from abuse' orders [1] to protect ALL of zie animals..hence, no justification for guns..hence, no guns.” FROM “I TOOK AN OATH” this website, by -Z ...more to follow. -Z



Re: The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S. (Score: 1)
by Toeg on Thursday, November 02 @ 09:31:41 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Thanks for your comments everyone, but I'm afraid you're missing my whole point. I never said owning a gun was wrong, immoral or illegal. I said that the US is filled with people who are crazy. Again, it's not that guns are immoral, illegal, unlawful, of the devil, horrible, evil, etc. etc. Guns don't kill by themselves. PEOPLE pulling the trigger kill. The guy that killed the Amish children did so because he was certifiably crazy. He was nuts and was granted the ability to use a gun while being crazy. It's not the gun that committed the crime, it's the crazy look behind the gun that did it. Please try to understand that there are not a nation full of crazies elsewhere around the world. The US is unique in this regard. I tried to point out that statistic after statistic points to the US having BY FAR the highest number of criminals in the world. That isn't some idle statistic that I pulled out of a humor magazine. It happens to be fact. I lived in Switzerland and I know what the differences are. I lived in Mexico, and there are a whole 'nuther set if criteria to deal with there. I don't mind if someone owns a gun, unless that person wants to walk into a grammar school and start to blow away people. Until we address the real issue VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, we are perpetrating this bloodbath by saying, "I don't care how crazy someone is, they have a right to own a gun and kill people." I just don't think that our forefathers intended the second amendment to protect crazy people, yet most Americans seem content with the US being as criminally oriented as it has become, especially as far as owning a gun is concerned. Again, other countries do not have citizens running around schools killing children right and left. ONLY the US has this. Again, ONLY the US sees this level of violence ..................... oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan. You could throw in Sudan and Congo as well. Again, it's not the gun that goes out to kill Amish kids. It's the crazy loon behind the gun. THAT person should not own a gun. THAT person is certifiably crazy. PRETENDING that that person has a RIGHT to own weapons only leads to more violence. CRAZY PEOPLE should not be allowed to own guns. Again, ONLY the US has this level of violence, oh and those countries at war. The level of violence that exists in the US DOES NOT exist elsewhere, oh except countries at war. When Congressmen go around saying that the level of violence in Iraq isn't bad because it is no worse than the US, we all need to be worried. To compare the level of violence in a war-ravaged country with the level of violence in the US IS NOT a good thing. Again, I have lived in Mexico and Switzerland. I have seen their crime rates as compared to ours. Peta has spoken about his city and the level of crime there. The rest of the world DOES NOT see the level of violence that we see here in the US. The problem is not the gun, the problem is the violence. By allowing crazy people to own guns, we are saying, "Please go out and kill someone. It's on us." I don't believe that it's right. Supporting a crazy person's right to own a gun and kill people is not a good thing.



Re: The Second Amendment vs. The Violence in the U. S. (Score: 1)
by FrogDaddy on Saturday, November 04 @ 17:02:56 EST
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal)
I kind of agree with Toeg here. it is clear, like so many things, that the intent has been lost. I'm a gun owner ... and not willing to give up my guns. Peter Diamondstone's quote "The presence of firearms in the general populace is to ensure the peaceful redress of greivences by the government." is correct. The question is "Why is so much of population, so violent" ... to me the answer is "we need a rebellion". Toeg is correct when he says we have too many crazies running around with automatic weapons. I think the population is under so much pressure to survive that it is stressed to the breaking point. So, what I'm saying is this: If we solve our political problems, so that our society is not so stressed, we will have solved "the crazies" with the guns. But, before giving up guns ... we must have a much better government that actually cares about it's people.






Site Copyright AlienLove 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
AlienLove is part of Scifillian Inc.
and SpoxTalk.com

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.13 Seconds